357 established “on the Swedish footing,"^ but the validity of this statement has never been tested. Pavel Miliukov devoted three pages to this question in his ambitious study of the economic history of the Petrine period and claimed that the Swedish kommcrskollegium and bergskollegium played only marginal roles as models for the Russian counterparts.^ Since access to source materials concerning the founding of the kommerts-kollegiia and the berg- i manujaktur-kollegiia has been very limited, no thorough study of this question can be presented here. In view of that fact, this presentation will be limited to the observations one can make on the basis of a relatively superficial comparison. 1. The koniliterfs-kollcgiia Plans for establishing a special college of trade or commerce were initiated in Sweden during the 1630s. An ordinance concerning a kommerskollegium was issued in 1637, but nothing was done to implement it at that time. The man behind the new college was the chancellor of the realm. Axel Oxenstierna, who was seeking every possible way in which to increase state revenues to meet Sweden’s rising wartime expenditures. The government’s growing interest in trade and manufactories stemmed, above all, from the fact that these economic pursuits were largely based on a cash economy. In other words, statesmen saw this type of activity as a readily available source of revenue. The fact was that people engaged in this sector of the economy could pay their taxes in cash and that this was very advantageous for Sweden’s wartime finances. At the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War, recruits who had to be paid in cash accounted for a third of the Swedish army. This proportion increased steadily as the war dragged on, thus making cash shortages even more noticeable. For this reason, the fiseal policy pursued by Chancellor Oxenstierna and the Swedish State Council was designed to make customs duties and excise taxes, both of whieh were paid in eash, the primary source of crown revenues. When it came to foreign trade, the crown was to receive its share through the so-called great marine customs duties, while domestic trade was to be taxed by means of the so-called minor customs duties on all produce brought to the town markets from the countryside. In addition, the burghers in the towns were to pay exelse taxes on the beer, baked goods, and euts of meat that were the end products of brewing, baking, and slaughtering. In the spirit of mercantilism, a logical extension of this fiscal policy was to See above, p. 138. * Pavel Miliukov, Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo Rossii v pervoi cbetverti XVIII v. (2nd cd., St. Petersburg, 1905), 449—451.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=